Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Religion and science are no different.

*facedesk*

Religion and science are different. Religion encourages being biased, science discourages being biased.

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Religion and science are no different.

*facedesk*

Religion and science are different. Religion encourages being biased, science discourages being biased.

Great, BUT what I wrote was:

People tend to see what they want to see, to project what they want into things.
Religion and science are no different.
Darwin viewed his findings through the lenses of his culturally bias "eyes".
As do we all to varying degrees.

Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.

PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.

Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.

Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.

In regards to Darwin's views and how they "prejudiced" his understanding of evolution and how, even today, this happens in not only religion but science as well.

Lunalle wrote:B.W. you've written a lot of things that appear to be accusations. I'm fine with that, but I wonder why? I'll try to touch on most of what you've said.

You compare my attitude toward my father to that of my attitude toward God. I don't think that is fair, because God is not a father figure to me, but my dad is.

You compare me to God, then ask how am I just? I am neither God, nor just in all things. You go on to ask what a just God would do. My answer is absolutely nothing, because objective just action cannot be based on another's subjective action.

I think you totally missed B.W's point, he is saying your love is inadequate compared to God's love because you are unable to love your Father after he has done bad things to you. He is saying imagine if God loved us the way you love (or lack there of) your Father, we would be in quite a pickle. God loves us no matter what because his love is perfect, to the point of coming here and sacrificing himself so that we can be washed clean.

The Christian definition of love is an action, we try to love people no matter what they have done to us or others, love is all about self sacrifice. Your love (or lack there of) is selfish and self centered, also mine can be at times too.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote: He is saying imagine if God loved us the way you love (or lack there of) your Father, we would be in quite a pickle.

Thanks for clearing things up Dan! I don't believe God exists, so it is really easy for me to imagine him loving like I do (in the case of my father, not loving). Yeah, we'd be in quite a pickle. Well, look around, we are in quite a pickle.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Context.
I was referring to the ONE thing that both religion and science have in common that they always will have: People.
And people are and always have been and always will be, bias.

Sure, I guess I'm just at a loss as to why you posted that.

In regards to Darwin's views and how they "prejudiced" his understanding of evolution and how, even today, this happens in not only religion but science as well.

Yep, that's the point I referred too the bias' of global warming has changed names to climate change reflecting the same biases. Question should reflect - when has climate never changed?

Abortion science is biased - Evolution alone is biased - political science ideologies are biased

Marxism is based solely upon ideas that can't keep a person feed; yet bias keeps this famine alive destroying and ruining many a life.

Truth is the cure for bias.

Doesn't matter if God came down to earth and literately tapped danced upon an atheist's head bias against God prevent him from accepting the invitation to join the dance.

We all have Bias - and sometimes bias can be good as I am biased against a human being eating rat poison but unbiased if a rat eats it.

God is bias too against sin and those who continue to reject his overtures of love and keep demanding he do something their way and on their terms. Yet, he keeps knocking on their heart's door, knowing full well, they will never open up to him.

Bias can be a good thing or it can be bad thing. When bad - truth makes it known as bad. Some people think cancer is a good thing while others desire to have it removed to prevent its spread...
-
-
-

If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.

Lunalle wrote:Thanks for clearing things up Dan! I don't believe God exists, so it is really easy for me to imagine him loving like I do (in the case of my father, not loving).

Yes we all know you don't believe I God, the whole point you keep missing is that your love is imperfect/flawed. I don't understand why you seem to keep saying that God would love like you do as nobody here said that at all.

Yeah, we'd be in quite a pickle. Well, look around, we are in quite a pickle.

We are in a pickle caused by our ability to choose evil, that's why a loving God with perfect love has given us a way out through Jesus.

Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.

What's this? I could say the same about your posts.

1over137 wrote:

Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.

What's this? I could say the same about your posts.

Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:

Truth is the cure for bias.

and

When bad - truth makes it known as bad.

Lunalle wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Lunalle wrote:If you take truth out of your post, I agree completely.

What's this? I could say the same about your posts.

Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:

Truth is the cure for bias.

and

When bad - truth makes it known as bad.

If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.

1over137 wrote:

Lunalle wrote:
Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:...

If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.

Ah, well. There is a distinction between truth and objective truth. I'll PM you a more detailed response, as you requested.

Lunalle wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Lunalle wrote:
Ah, I'm agnostic. I don't believe we're capable of understanding objective truth, if it even exists. I meant that I agree with everything in the post, except:...

If I read your post and your signature you seem to be inconsistent.

Ah, well. There is a distinction between truth and objective truth. I'll PM you a more detailed response, as you requested.

You statement is self-defeating.
If you are not capable of understanding objective truth (or knowing it even exists) then you cannot make a claim that there is a distinction between truth and objective truth. To say so, means you are claiming to know something objectively.

jlay wrote:You statement is self-defeating. If you are not capable of understanding objective truth (or knowing it even exists) then you cannot make a claim that there is a distinction between truth and objective truth. To say so, means you are claiming to know something objectively.

Whoa. I understand the concept of objective truth. That doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it. We can make circular arguments all day long, but that's just a waste of time. Subjectively, there is a distinction between truth and objective truth. Does that make you feel better?